ed84c Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 i have a horrible feeling that that was sarcasm...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Muah ha haaaa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 lol damn i knew i should have read the thread.... anyway back to my queries; are these bigger than the largest 'daisy cutter' type bomb which claimed to be the biggest non nuclear device in the film 'outbreak'. Grandslam was a 10' date='000 pounder right? used all the time in WW2; for that reason i suggest it might not be the biggest. Does a V3 exist? or other such IRBMs ............. or what about glow in the dark paint for a radium source?[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Grandslam was a 10,000 pounder right? used all the time in WW2; for that reason i suggest it might not be the biggest. 22,000 pounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 29, 2004 Author Share Posted July 29, 2004 have a read about this puppy http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 1,000 pounds less! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 29, 2004 Author Share Posted July 29, 2004 how about the actual calorific values of the explosives used though? the old GSX types aren`t a match for modern Hi Ex. the shell casing`s really a moot point as well for such devices, it`s the Boom Boom material weight and calorific value that counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 I measure by how much explosives. "Biggest Bomb" goes by weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 1, 2004 Author Share Posted August 1, 2004 that then would beg the question, WHY so much research and effort has been involved in this latest weapon? when they could quite easily replicate a dozen or more of the old "biggest bomb" in a day or 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 Because the old ones don't have guidance. You can't fit a JDAM unit to it, because it is far too big. You must build a custom guidance, and that takes up space, meaning less explosives. It would, however, be a rather nasty (powerful, not bad) weapon to drop from a B-52. MOAB only can be dropped from a cargo plane, so the Grand Slam is more versatile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 and also, its much easier to just drop a small bomb, or launch a small missile somewhere than to start dropping some multiple-thousand pound bomb..... [thats small is relatively]! plus, the guidance system, also, you could never make one of the old 'big-bombs' into a missile and launch it from miles and miles away........ whereas one of the modern day, small-but-big-explosion bombs... could be turned to a missile and laucnhed from a small van! -- after that comes shoulder launched nukes, or sumin -- then nuclear pellets or sumin, which are ammo for guns! -- by which time, the missiles will be better, maybe hydrogen [already produced]or sumin new! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickinfinit Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 and before anyone complains about this post, I have express permission to post it! here`s how to build your own atomic reactor exploiting the decay principals and it`s physical effects. ALL radioactive isotopes with a high enough decay rate exhibit the physical effect of being several degrees warmer than their ambient temperature, Radium will always be 1 degree C above it`s ambient temp. the principal is simple, put enough radium into a thermos vacuum flask and fill it with boiling water, the water will gradualy get hotter and create steam. that steam may them be used to drive a small fan (turbine) and in turn a that rotation will turn a small generator ( a little stepper or DC motor shaft). but where do you get Radium from???? easy goto old secong hand shops or antique shops, buy clocks with luminous dials (they used radium salts in the old ones) an old aircraft graveyard, the cockpit dials were also radium painted on 1960`s and backwards aircraft. up untill the late 70`s, some of the 1`st LCD watches had a radium light backlight also. it`ll take some time to find a good source sure, oh yeah, old army surpluss equipment had radium painted dials too use you head, think OLD and Luminous, owning a little geiger counter that you can build in kit form or buy second hand off ebay will be a great help for sure, but not a definate requirement you`ll need enough to roughly quarter fill the flask, the rest is water and a little gap for the steam. those are the bare bone basics anyway, I may post alternative methods later including thermocouples and valve solenoids from old washing machines so the water can be topped up automaticaly as the level drops in the flask (I`ll include the electronics needed too), Enjoy, and happy hunting Do u know how I could make a solar energy generator I like that idea a little more I like my hair and radiation kinda freaks me out lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 I`ve seen somewhere a site that shows you how to make a crude solar cell using copper Oxide salt water and a jar. it`s no where near as effective as shop bought types, but it does work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickinfinit Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 ty I will look into seeing the max output I could make with my limited skills lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 About the radium atomic reactor thingie, I'd imagine that 1g of radium-226 should do the trick nicely, as its disintegration rate is 3.7 * 10^10 disintegrations per second. And if someone doesn't know, that's the definition of a curie, as I mentioned in another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 About the radium atomic reactor thingie, I'd imagine that 1g of radium-226 should do the trick nicely, as its disintegration rate is 3.7 * 10^10 disintegrations per second. And if someone doesn't know, that's the definition of a curie, as I mentioned in another thread. Since the Q value of the reaction is 4.871 MeV, that's 28.8 mW (more accurate number than my prior back-of-the envelope calculation that I gave before), so 1 g will not do much for you, as I pointed out earlier in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Oh bugger. :/ Luckily, most of the following daughter products have a under 1h half-life, giving some extra W as some of them have even up to 7 MeV decays. Not that it would help in the 1g case though. :< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 agreed you`de certainly need several tens of grams for anything like a "workable" model, and losses have to be factored in also. but 50g in the bottom of a flask wouldn`t ocupy that much space in a 1 litre thermos flask as the radium is quite dense this idea isn`t and NEVER WAS intended for anyone to actualy build either, it was purely a concept based on simple physics that I considered interesting because of it`s simplicty a resonable one would power an LED for as long as you live and a GOOD one would run a small battery radio for just as long (and beyond). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Heh, I at least realized it was just a concept, as it's hard for anyone to get even a gram of pure radium. Btw, as I remembered this is the thread that brought me here in the first place, the Radioactive Boyscout came to mind. And from that comes to mind U-233: Does someone know how much energy is released in fission of such a nucleus? Not that I'm going to build a similar apparatus as David Hahn did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 And from that comes to mind U-233: Does someone know how much energy is released in fission of such a nucleus? About 200 MeV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 "About 200 MeV." Yipes! About how much of that goes to the released neutrons (when there are 4)? Or is it a rather random amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 "About 200 MeV." Yipes! About how much of that goes to the released neutrons (when there are 4)? Or is it a rather random amount? On average, neutrons get about 2 MeV each. The bulk of the released energy goes into KE of the fission fragments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 the moab is intended to clear jungles for landing fields. its not intended as a frontline weapon of war. also what really frightens me is the fact that our (americans) military is developing small nuclear weapons (>1kiloton) for use as bunker busting warheads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted November 7, 2004 Yup, I can see how that would Bust some Bunkers! didn`t they get into enough trouble using depleted Uranium shells in the 1`st gulf war, with Civillian action taken against them. SC technology is already cappable of doing the job, why use nukes? you`re right, it IS a disturbing thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 I wonder why US didn't use neutron bombs in Vietnam. Would have saved a lot of lives back then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now